The compulsion for merciless transparency
The Internet creates a level of transparency that cannot be controlled. This poses a major challenge for all forms of communication. Guest commentary by Kaspar Loeb, CEO of the Swiss advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi.
Let's imagine for a moment that we were the agency handling BP's fat budget worldwide. Let's further imagine that we had a client on the phone in a full-blown panic, begging us to do something so that the greasy oil spill doesn't pollute the brand forever and make the beautiful new sunflower logo look very old forever.
Apart from the fact that in many companies, communication is only really taken seriously when the Perfect Storm is already roaring, we would probably suggest one of the now well-known "mea culpa campaigns" to defuse the situation, in which BP apologizes profusely for the harm it is doing to thousands of people and to nature. And it would not work.
The public cannot be controlled
First, the credibility of these apology orgies has been severely damaged by the public, at the latest since the appearances of celebrities such as Bill Clinton or Tiger Woods in their tank tops, and second, the World Wide Web creates a transparency and publicity that cannot be controlled and can hardly be steered. On Facebook, a community of 140,000 members has already been formed, who are calling on people to stop filling up with BP fuel and to avoid all of its products under the name "Boycott BP. On Twitter, there is a fake feed called "BP Global PR," where 50,000 activists post satirical posts mocking BP's attempts to downplay the environmental disaster. Sourly, a BP spokesman commented on this unwanted PR, saying, "It's a shame, but obviously people have a right to express their opinions in this way." Better, he would have said, they take that right.
The words of BP CEO Tony Hayward, who tearfully declared in an interview that he wanted his former life back, were not very helpful either. He had to respond to the ensuing storm of protest with a humble apology on Facebook.
Companies are forced to be transparent
While everyone has been talking about the "transparent citizen" for years, legal entities are now also being forced to be more transparent than ever before. The life camera from the bottom of the sea shows billions of people worldwide the extent of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico every second. Appeasing comments from the safe shore miss their mark when the documented reality underwater speaks a different language.
One of the greatest entrepreneurs of the last few years, who until now preferred to only communicate publicly, or rather preach, when he presented another ingenious, innovative product at an Apple trade fair, has recognized the signs of the times and made a surprising about-face in recent weeks. In the past, Steve Jobs usually only granted the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal the grace of sharing his insights with the public. But since the negative headlines threatened to take some of the freshness out of the nibbled apple, Jobs suddenly began to answer customer mails directly, and in a way that would make a PR expert who was intent on harmony and balance break out in a cold sweat. For example, he asked a customer who was complaining about the late delivery of the iPad in Europe whether he was "crazy," only to explain that Apple only wants a perfect launch and therefore only delivers when the organization is really ready. And a blogger got his fat when he complained that Apple was restricting freedom on the net through its rigid rules. "What freedom are you talking about?", Jobs snapped at him. "The freedom to download porn or programs that drain your battery?"
Brand images become verifiable
Companies, entrepreneurs and managers may accept that the brands for which they are responsible become a transparent vessel that allows the audience to choose which of them they want to identify with and which they do not. A DNA becomes visible that either matches one's own DNA or does not. And we professional communicators better adjust to ensure that our official messages are in line with the brand image, which in the future will be based less on wishes and more on verifiable reality.
Apart from the fact that in many companies, communication is only really taken seriously when the Perfect Storm is already roaring, we would probably suggest one of the now well-known "mea culpa campaigns" to defuse the situation, in which BP apologizes profusely for the harm it is doing to thousands of people and to nature. And it would not work.
The public cannot be controlled
First, the credibility of these apology orgies has been severely damaged by the public, at the latest since the appearances of celebrities such as Bill Clinton or Tiger Woods in their tank tops, and second, the World Wide Web creates a transparency and publicity that cannot be controlled and can hardly be steered. On Facebook, a community of 140,000 members has already been formed, who are calling on people to stop filling up with BP fuel and to avoid all of its products under the name "Boycott BP. On Twitter, there is a fake feed called "BP Global PR," where 50,000 activists post satirical posts mocking BP's attempts to downplay the environmental disaster. Sourly, a BP spokesman commented on this unwanted PR, saying, "It's a shame, but obviously people have a right to express their opinions in this way." Better, he would have said, they take that right.
The words of BP CEO Tony Hayward, who tearfully declared in an interview that he wanted his former life back, were not very helpful either. He had to respond to the ensuing storm of protest with a humble apology on Facebook.
Companies are forced to be transparent
While everyone has been talking about the "transparent citizen" for years, legal entities are now also being forced to be more transparent than ever before. The life camera from the bottom of the sea shows billions of people worldwide the extent of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico every second. Appeasing comments from the safe shore miss their mark when the documented reality underwater speaks a different language.
One of the greatest entrepreneurs of the last few years, who until now preferred to only communicate publicly, or rather preach, when he presented another ingenious, innovative product at an Apple trade fair, has recognized the signs of the times and made a surprising about-face in recent weeks. In the past, Steve Jobs usually only granted the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal the grace of sharing his insights with the public. But since the negative headlines threatened to take some of the freshness out of the nibbled apple, Jobs suddenly began to answer customer mails directly, and in a way that would make a PR expert who was intent on harmony and balance break out in a cold sweat. For example, he asked a customer who was complaining about the late delivery of the iPad in Europe whether he was "crazy," only to explain that Apple only wants a perfect launch and therefore only delivers when the organization is really ready. And a blogger got his fat when he complained that Apple was restricting freedom on the net through its rigid rules. "What freedom are you talking about?", Jobs snapped at him. "The freedom to download porn or programs that drain your battery?"
Brand images become verifiable
Companies, entrepreneurs and managers may accept that the brands for which they are responsible become a transparent vessel that allows the audience to choose which of them they want to identify with and which they do not. A DNA becomes visible that either matches one's own DNA or does not. And we professional communicators better adjust to ensure that our official messages are in line with the brand image, which in the future will be based less on wishes and more on verifiable reality.
